Friday, September 30, 2005

Arabs: Anti-American or Not?

(Cross-posted at Blogmeister USA)

I read this extremely interesting commentary by Iraninan Amir Taheri, whose columns are featured regularly in the New York Post. Using Karen Hughes' current good will tour of the Middle East as a springboard, Taheri poses the question: "Are Arabs the most anti-American people on Earth?" What he discloses in order to answer the question is illuminating.

In addition to many American products and business outlets in Arab countries, one will find that:


More than 70 percent of what's broadcast on Arab TV stations (including those regarded as "obsessively anti-American") is U.S.-made; 80 percent of the films shown in Arab cinemas are made in Hollywood. There are more than two dozen English dailies, all using the American version of the language. Go through them, and you see that much of the content comes from U.S. agencies and syndication services.

The above paragraph will be important later. Here's more:

Only God and the U.S. immigration service would know how many Arabs hold green cards or even dual Arab-U.S. citizenship. With the possible exception of Libya, which has a weird regime, and Syria, whose leaders fear they may be targeted for "regime change," almost all Arab regimes are well-disposed toward the United States. Sixteen of the 21 member states of the Arab League host some U.S. military presence. The FBI maintains offices in at least 12 Arab capitals.

I imagine Iran is among the few whose government is anti-American, but this information isn't what one would expect to hear.

Remember the paragraph I said would be important? Here's why:

In Arab newspapers, the bulk of the material that could be classified as anti-Bush and/or anti-American is translated from U.S. sources. Stroll in the streets where books and video and audio tapes are on sale at the curbsides and you will see that 90 percent of the items vilifying America come from American, French and British authors.

Thanks, Noam Chomsky! You've found an audience after all.

At any given time, one can find a horde of American activists visiting the region to urge the natives to hate America:

* Two years ago, a group of Americans appeared in Arab capitals to stop people in the bazaars to "apologize for the Crusades," although the United States didn't even exist when those wars were fought between Europe and the Middle East.

They took a page out of Bill Clinton's book, who apologizes for--well, everything.

* One American professor recently published an op-ed in The New York Times relating his trip to Iran, where he was "disappointed" to see that students not only did not hate George W. Bush but, horror of horrors, also craved for an American-style democracy instead of an Islamist utopia.

If only this professor had those students in his classes, he could have shown them the "light."

* A friend, who happens to be a minister in an Arab state, was saddened this summer when, spending holidays with his family in the United States as he had always done since student days, he had to quarrel with an old American schoolmate. The point of the dispute was that the American insisted that the United States was an "evil empire," while the Arab believed that it could be a force for reform in the Middle East.


Read the article for more startling examples. Taheri's conclusion:

There are many issues on which the Arabs disagree with the United States. But most Arabs don't see that as a sign of anti-Arabism on the part of America. Hughes should not regard it as a sign of anti-Americanism on the part of Arabs.

It's nice to know that so many are doing their part to crumble the wall of misunderstanding between Arabs and Americans...not. Anti-Americanism exists in the Arab world, of that there is no doubt. If it didn't, 9/11 would never have happened. But is it as widespread as we think it is?

If not, some of our very own countrymen will do their best to encourage it.

Priscilla Owen Out?

Rumor that she pulled her name out of consideration for SCOTUS.

With everything going on about Bill Bennett's comments, I am salivating (more than usual) for Janice Rogers Brown. Brown!

Cindy Sheehan and MSM Blindness

Let's get something straight here, even if MSM members won't.

Cindy Sheehan isn't a "peace mom".

A person who wants peace understands that there are times when you have to fight.

Americans, in general, want peace, but they won't tolerate being attacked.

USA will not have peace as long as terrorists threaten the USA and its allies. Thus, the USA has sent its military into Afghanistan and Iraq.

A "peace mom" would understand the need for such military action.

Cindy Sheehan, however, has demonstrated that she isn't a "peace mom".

Over at PoliPundit, someone suggested that Ms. Sheehan be called a pawn, probably because she is being used by Marxists, as seen at that rally that took place in Washington, D.C.

A fitting word to describe Ms. Sheehan is enabler, because she is enabling the enemies of the USA, which is the opposite of what her son Casey was doing when he was killed.

You don't have to approve of the fighting in Iraq in order to see that there is something wrong with an American enabling America's enemies.

When it comes to Ms. Sheehan, some MSM members have selective blindness.

Brock, Bennett, Clinton, Jess and Sullivan

I am going to post extensively on this later, but I have a few quick questions...

1. Has anyone checked to see what level the Andrew Sullivan freak-out meter is at today?

2. Where's Hillary?

3. Where is Jesse--"Abortion is black genocide...What happens to the mind of a person and the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience?"--Jackson? [Yes, Jesse said it back in 1977]

INTERBLOGATORY HIT’N’RUNS

(Caution; language:) Bizarre Love Triangle: One has to seriously wonder if Hillary Clinton is a tranny because it takes balls the size of church bells to lay the blame of AIDS in Africa at the current administrations feet. h/t Chris

Before you take that next drink: Exsanguination. People don't realize what a horrific death that is. I remember the first time I walked into an alcoholic death. I thought at first it was as murder scene because of all the blood.

SENIOR MOMENT: HOWARD Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, insulted Sen. Chuck Schumer yesterday and didn't look too good himself. Dean was tasked with introducing Sen. Hillary Clinton ... hee hee hee

HELP WANTED: Mr. & Mrs. Robert DeNiro are in need of domestic help; butler, nanny, maid. There have been difficulties but not with the mister. Sources say agencies that supply domestic help are aware of the difficulties, and that the search for help has widened to Los Angeles and upstate.

Where there's smoke: As of 11:31 PM this evening the entire L.A. basin is smothering in a blanket of smoke from the brush fires. Stepping outside and taking a deep breath is like trying to inhale the contents of an ashtray in an opium den.

Something Just Not Right With The "Judy Miller Gets Out Of Jail" Story: My understanding was that she was getting out in a few weeks no matter what, so if the principle is that important, why give in now, when nothing really has changed?

Breaking News: New Yorkers Don't Like Bush: ** [I]t took a poll to find out that apparently people in New York do not like President George W. Bush (gasp). Try not to panic, I'm pretty sure Bush will still carry New York in the 2008 election like he did in 2000 and 2004.

Democrats Plan to Go Positive in 2006

So reports Mort Kondracke.

Democrats have an answer to the question, "OK, what's your alternative to the Bush policies you constantly criticize?" It is: "We're working on it." When it emerges, in a form yet to be determined, it's likely to include proposals for tax reform, health insurance, energy independence, national security and retirement reform.

Tax reform? The only kind of tax reform the Democrats ever propose is the kind that reforms your wallet by making it a little thinner. Health insurance? Wow, that's exciting and new: HillaryCare 2006. Energy independence? Arguably a laudable goal, but there are two aspects to achieving that: Energy conservation, and finding new sources of energy. So far the Democrats have only mustered enthusiasm for the former. Are they going to propose new hydroelectric dams, or nuclear power plants, or drilling in ANWAR?

One key outside consultant told me he once thought Democrats needed to come forward with positive messages immediately, but that he's changed his mind. "The Republican numbers are bad now, bad across the board," he said. "So, we have time. Let them stew in their juices a bit longer. They perfected this in '94 and it worked for them. What's the one thing we've done? We've held the line on Social Security. Did we do anything else? Not that I can tell."

Hey, it worked in 2002 and 2004, why not try it again?


According to the latest Democracy Corps poll, Democrats now enjoy a 9-point advantage in a generic Congressional preference poll and are running stronger in unidentified seat-by-seat matchups.

Yet the poll found that the public's general opinion of Democrats is no better than it is of Republicans, that "feelings about Democrats are at a 2.5-year low" and that Democrats receive only 48 percent of the 2006 preference ballot - the same as their 2004 showing.

Buncha problems there. Democracy Corps is not non-partisan, the ballot that voters face is not a generic Congressional preference poll, and it's hard to argue that the Democrats are going to pick up anything when feelings about them are lower than since 2003.

Roy Blunt, new House Majority Leader, puts it well:

"I think the problem our friends on the other side have is that they can't win without ideas and they can't win with the ideas they have. If they don't come forward with the kind of proposals that Republicans brought to the public arena in 1994, they're not going to win the majority. And the kind of ideas that Leader Pelosi will come up with are not likely to be the kind of ideas that will appeal to the country."

See also the Viking Pundit

Will Harry Reid Step Down

Rush was absolutely right yesterday. He said that the Democrats and the media are overplaying their hand on the delay indictment. Just like the non-story about travel reimbursments when every democrat refiled all their paperwork when they realized they were just as guilty as Tom DeLay. San Fran Nan Bella Pelosi was asked about why she was criticizing Tom DeLay when she did the same thing. Nancy replied that this was not about her, its about Tom DeLay.

Well lets see if Senator Reid will receive the same breathless attention that Tom DeLay has received:

Money connected to Reid

Senator arranged for grant now involved in indictment of pastors.

WASHINGTON -- The money that led to the indictment this week of two Las Vegas pastors and the wife of one of them came from federal grants arranged by Sen. Harry Reid in September 2001, a Reid spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Moving to distance Reid from a possible scandal, aide Tessa Hafen said the senator sought the money on behalf of a nonprofit social services agency and not for the churches or persons who have been accused of mishandling the money.

"The money was administered by the Department of Justice, and it went to the agency in Nevada (Alliance Collegiums Association of Nevada)," Hafen said.

The Rev. Willie Davis, the longtime pastor of Second Baptist Church, and his wife, Emma, were indicted Tuesday on fraud charges with an associate minister, the Rev. McTheron Jones.

They are accused of spending $330,000 from federal grants on themselves although the money was intended for halfway houses for prison inmates in Southern Nevada.

The indictment identifies Willie Davis as president of the Alliance Collegiums Association of Nevada board of directors.

How is this different than the DeLay indictment? Well it's $140,000 more than what's involved with DeLay. Also, there is no zealous prosecutor charging conspiracy because there's actually EVIDENCE in this case.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Bozell on the Bush Haters

Brent Bozell has an interesting comparison piece on the coverage of last weekend's anti-war protest and a pro-life gathering with similar numbers of people in Washington D.C.


The Washington Post won for the best biggest puff piece, a front-page story hyping how "Antiwar Fervor Fills the Streets." Reporter Petula Dvorak began: "Tens of thousands of people packed downtown Washington yesterday and marched past the White House in the largest show of antiwar sentiment in the nation's capital since the conflict in Iraq began.""Tens of thousands" also marched in the last pro-life march in January, but that story landed on page A-3, which is better than most years. Reporter David Snyder noted "tens of thousands of antiabortion advocates marched on the Mall yesterday as part of an annual protest of the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing women the right to abortion." That's an interesting difference in terms. Pro-lifers were advocates marching against a landmark guarantee for women, not people "packing the streets" to show growing "antiwar sentiment."


Click here to read the whole thing.

I'm sure it was simply a difference in editorial style...

Stop It Drudge!

Why is he driving me insane by putting JRB's photo up as a possible nominee?

God I wish it were true.

Guardian Columnist: Why Does America Celebrate Heroes?

(Crossposted at Brainster's)

We don't have any newspapers quite like the Guardian in the US. It's kind of an amalgam of the Nation and the New York Times; mostly far left but with an occasional dollop of sense. This column, by Timothy Garton Ash, unfortunately lacks that latter quality.


This was the enactment of a dream, of course. The statistical reality of social mobility in today's United States is rather different. But a dream in which enough people believe is itself a kind of reality, and that has long been the case of the American dream. It's a remarkable fact that, in surveys, many poorer Americans oppose high taxes on the rich - presumably because they believe they might one day be rich themselves. There are just enough success stories of outstanding individuals from poor and immigrant backgrounds to keep the dream alive.

That is not entirely the reason why sensible people oppose high taxes on the rich. In fact, we had those high taxes right up until Ronald Reagan. The reason why we oppose high taxes on the rich is that the rich have the capital stock of the country. If they are taxed highly on their investments, they will tend not to invest. And then the rest of us suffer the ill-effects. Perhaps the classic case of this was when the Clinton Administration decided to raise taxes on the purchase of luxury goods, like yachts. Inevitably what happened was that rich people decided not to buy yachts. Who suffered? The folks who made their living building them.

Two months later we saw America at its worst, as members of the black underclass in the ninth ward of New Orleans drowned, grew sick and were preyed upon by violent gangs, while government failed to help or protect them. There are even reports (unconfirmed, and perhaps apocryphal) of American women changing their name from Katrina, since Hurricane Katrina has become a synonym not just for natural disaster but for human and political failure. How could the richest and most powerful country in the world, capable of hitting a flea in Afghanistan with a precision laser-guided missile, fail its own poor so miserably?

Sigh. Perhaps Mr Garton Ash is unaware that the number of dead in Katrina was vastly overstated, that the reports of violent gangs appear to have been completely made up. I don't know anybody named Katrina myself, but I doubt if many women so named would change it just because of the hurricane.

Then he diverges onto another path which I found interesting:

It would be interesting to do a word count for mentions of the word "hero" in American public life, as compared with Britain, France or Germany. A hundred years ago, conservative nationalist Germans used to characterise the "true" Germans as heroes and the Jews as wheeler-dealers: Helden against Händler. Today, we have a different stereotype: true Americans as Helden and limp-wristed Europeans as Händler. Yet in practice, of course, you had the same mix of true bravery and, as one journalist on the spot noted, "real raw panic" in the response to Rita and Katrina as you would in most societies.

I have no doubt that the word "hero" is used more commonly in the United States than in Europe and for a simple reason: Leftists hate heroes. Indeed, I suspect Mr Garton Ash is not a big fan himself. Note his immediate (and inane) evocation of the Germans and the Jews; the implication is clearly that if you like heroes you must have loved the Holocaust.

Why does the Left denigrate heroes? Because when we celebrate heroes, we are elevating an individual over the common man. We are saying that this person is better than average, that he or she is deserving of admiration and emulation. The Left realizes that heroic individuals undercut their argument that people on their own cannot succeed, that a collective, community effort is needed. It takes a village, remember?

Think about the reaction of "cartoonist" Ted Rall to the death of Pat Tillman. Tillman, a multimillionnaire athlete, had quit professional football after 9-11 to enlist in the army, where he became a Ranger. He was tragically killed in Afghanistan in a friendly fire incident. Rall created a cartoon depicting Tillman as bloodthirsty to kill Arabs. In the final panel, two newspaper reporters are talking with their editor about what they think of Tillman. "Uh--Idiot?" says the first reporter. "Sap?" suggests the second. "Hero!" says the editor.

That's why the continuing theme of Brainster's (my solo blog) is the hero, the individual who rises above the moment to achieve greatness. It is to celebrate people like Marine Captain Brian Chontosh, or Phillip Bullard, or Sgt Paul Smith.

Yes, I blog on a lot of topics. But the word "hero" definitely pops up more often in my blog than most. It appears in 17 different posts in September alone, according to a quick search.

Fetus Smuggling

Disgusting:



Colombian police have found the bodies of three human foetuses hidden in statues destined for the United States.
The discovery was made by officers searching for contraband at Bogota Airport on Tuesday.

The corpses were wrapped in plastic and concealed inside statues of Christian icons, which were smashed open.

Colombian police chief Gen Jord Alirio Varon said the four- to five-month-old foetuses could have been intended for use in Satanic rituals.

Gen Varon said the foetuses were found alongside crucifixes and medals.

He said officials are trying to find out who sent the packages, which came from Barranquilla in Colombia and were destined for Miami in the US.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Feminists Laud First Female Suicide Bomber in Iraq

(The following piece is a political satire.)

The first known woman suicide bomber in Iraq, killing at least six Iraqi army recruits and wounding 35, has been hailed as a trailblazer by feminists.


Gloria Steinem, considered the mother of modern feminism, had only words of praise for the nameless woman. "When a woman steps into a role formerly dominated by men and makes it her own, then women everywhere benefit by her courage and fortitude. She is an example of where perseverance and persistence can bring you." Steinem then had a pertinent question regarding the bombing. "Was she wearing a bra?"

Echoing those sentiments was Eve Ensler, creator of the Vagina Monologues and crusader against violence toward women. "She sounds like an amazing person. By killing these men she is fighting back against the cycle of violence perpetrated by men upon women. Of course, it's too bad she had to die with them. I hope she shouted, 'My vagina wins!' when she pulled the cord."

Others were wondering how they could be a part of this groundbreaking occurrence. Lawyer Lynne Stewart offered to help with the woman's defense, but upon being reminded that the woman was dead, revised her offer to defending those who recruited the female bomber--should they decide to go public. "Of course, they'll have to wait until I find out how long I'll be in prison," the convicted lawyer chuckled.

Even some Hollywood stars are in awe of this woman whom they have never met, and now never will. "It's like, so totally awesome," said Cameron Diaz, host of the MTV show Trippin'. " "I'd love to try that on my show, but, um, I don't think the producers would go for it. It's way too dangerous. But I'm with her in spirit, you know?" she added as she boarded her private jet with Drew Barrymore as they flew to an impoverished country in Africa to shoot another episode of the program.

Finally, grieving mother Cindy Sheehan blamed the woman's act on President Bush. "People are saying this woman was brainwashed, or maybe even forced, into doing this heroic act," she declared from her jail cell in Washington D.C. "But I know what she was thinking. She knew that by blowing herself up and taking a few evil Iraqi army recruits with her, she was actually going to blow a big hole in the reason for the U.S. being in Iraq. I'd love to meet her mother. Maybe she can join my tour."

Jesse Jackson to go on trial

John Hawkins at Right Wing News has picked up on a story that is bound to become a hot topic beginning next year.

Rev. Jesse Jackson will be a defendent in a civil trial that is to take place next January.

To learn more about the story, click here.

Replace DeLay with Gay?

UPDATE: Dreier was not asked to replace DeLay.

This is quite interesting:

The latest target of a Capitol Hill outing campaign — designed to expose closeted homosexual Republicans who oppose civil rights for gay people — is San Gabriel Valley Congressman David Dreier.

The powerful 12-term congressman — chairman of the House Rules Committee, chairman of the California Republican House delegation, co-chairman of Californians for Bush, chairman of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s transition team — is in the cross hairs of Mike Rogers and his Blogactive.com Web site, whose outing campaign has already forced one GOP congressman out of politics. Representative Ed Schrock, a reactionary from Virginia, ended his re-election campaign last month after Rogers put on his Web site an audiotape of Schrock trolling for tricks on a gay chat line.

Now, Rogers — a former development director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — has given Dreier the “Roy Cohn Award, in recognition of 24 years of working against gay and lesbian rights while living as a gay man yourself.” He is pummeling Dreier with almost daily revelations as a response to the GOP’s anti-gay crusade for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.

Rogers’ campaign against Dreier got a major boost when it was taken up by Raw Story, the hot new liberal gadfly newsblog. Raw Story — which is edited out of Cambridge, Massachusetts, by 23-year-old John Byrne, who is also gay — last week published an interview with Dreier’s Democratic opponent in 1998 and 2000, Dr. Janice Nelson, who said she was aware during her 2000 campaign that Dreier was living with his chief of staff, Brad Smith. “Brad was like an invisible presence,” she said. “They really have the routine down slick.”

First of all, you will recall I met and confronted this Rogers fellow at the National Press Club. He firmly believes that all gay Republicans are shams and in hiding unless they are actually sodomizing each other on C-Span. I didn't see Rogers shouting down McGreevy at any press conferences.

And until I see the "Anti-Gay Person's Act H.R. 666" that Dreier authored and voted for, then excuse me for not being exited by this information. Dreier would be a gayhater to this crowd unless he was actually signing Andrew Sullivan and David Brock's marriage certificate.

On DeLay

I don't know if he did it, but it sure doesn't look good.

I don't care how good he is for the Party. If he did it then good riddence and I hope he spends all two years behind bars.

UPDATE: Okay, maybe I shouldn't just throw him under the bus. Here is what Mark Levin had to say at the corner (and I really trust his opinion in judicial matters):

DELAY [Mark R. Levin]

Here's my first take on this indictment (I've only read the indictment and nothing more for now): The indictment is three pages in length. Other than a statement that "one or more" of 3 individuals, including Tom DeLay, entered into an illegal conspiracy, I can't find a single sentence tying Tom DeLay to a crime. That is, there's not a single sentence tying DeLay to the contribution. The indictment describes the alleged conduct of two other individuals, but nothing about DeLay. You would think if Ronnie Earle had even a thin reed of testimony linking DeLay to the contribution, it would have been noted in the indictment to justify the grand jury's action. Moreover, not only is there no information about DeLay committing acts in furtherance of a conspiracy, there's no information about DeLay entering into a conspiracy. I honestly believe that unless there's more, this is an egregious abuse of prosecutorial power. It's a disgrace. I understand that not everything has to be contained in an indictment, but how about something!

This is a reasonable argument not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, I am sticking to my statement above if he is in fact involved.

UPDATE II: From Media Blog

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Tom DeLay, for reasons that have entirely to do with the expansion of entitlement spending under his watch (see Bruce Bartlett's excellent piece on NRO today for details). But having said that, this indictment is totally phony. Here's why:

The indictment centers around a money swap that took place between the Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), to which DeLay has ties, and the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC). TRMPAC sent $190,000 to RNSEC, and RNSEC then sent the same total amount in seven checks ranging from $20,000 to $40,000 to Texas House candidates in 2002. Travis County DA Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, calls this money laundering, because the money that TRMPAC sent to RNSEC came from coporations, which are barred from contributing to campaigns in Texas.

What you won't hear in the press is that A) This is a perfectly legal move, and B) the Democrats did the exact same thing. An Institute on Money in State Politics study reveals that on Oct. 31, 2002, the Texas Democratic Party did the same thing when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC the very same day.

Here's what I wrote about this case last summer:

Just to put this $190,000 deal into perspective and demonstrate the petty, vindictive nature of this partisan investigation, the study also reveals that Democrats transferred a total of approximately $11 million dollars in soft money from its national parties to fund Texas campaigns in 2002, compared to $5.2 million transferred by Republicans.
I've been watching TV all day and no one has provided this context. I'll keep watching to see if the coverage gets more than fingernail-deep.

Bottom line: Even people who aren't fans of Tom DeLay should show some intellectual honesty and admit that this is an out-of-control prosecutor and a phony charge.